Re: Disallow setting client_min_messages > ERROR?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Disallow setting client_min_messages > ERROR?
Date: 2018-11-08 22:37:06
Message-ID: 10368.1541716626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:56 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> We could implement the clamp either in elog.c or in a GUC assignment
>> hook. If we do the latter, then SHOW and pg_settings would report the
>> effective value rather than what you set. That seems a bit cleaner
>> to me, and not without precedent. As far as the backwards compatibility
>> angle goes, you can invent scenarios in which either choice could be
>> argued to break something; but I think the most likely avenue for
>> trouble is if the visible setting doesn't match the actual behavior.
>> So I'm leaning to the assign-hook approach; comments?

> My patch used the check hook, but works either way.

I was deliberately not getting into the detail of which hook to use ;-).

Anyway, pushed with some adjustments and work on the documentation.
Notably, I thought the warning message was inappropriate and
overcomplicated, so I just dropped it. I don't think we really need
anything there.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-11-08 23:00:55 Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Previous Message David Rowley 2018-11-08 22:26:05 Re: Speeding up INSERTs and UPDATEs to partitioned tables